- From: Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:32:40 -0700
- To: bhaugen <linkage@interaccess.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Hey, All I did was to let off the stink bomb! I have my doubts about the REST architecture, not as a valid technological solution but from a religious POV (i.e., it seems to me that RESTers are a pretty religious lot) I am learning a lot though. There are some hard issues here, on the other hand I see no reason to support an architecture that doesn't meet our basic needs. As to my preferred approach, you need the notions of an agent, a conversation, communicative acts, a contract, a social/business relationship before you can properly model the normal business cycle. Frank On Wednesday, July 17, 2002, at 08:34 AM, bhaugen wrote: > > Francis, > > I thought you were the champion of a semantic approach > to these problems. > > Instead of technical kludges like "correlation ID", > which has no semantic value, why don't you > define a business semantic model of the > conversation and its contents? > > E.g. you have an Order and a Delivery and > an Account with a Balance. The Delivery > fulfills the Order. > > If you think of the conversation as speech acts, > the Order is a Commitment, and Delivery > fulfills the Commitment. > > Etc. > > It seems to me that all of the above concepts > are much more like REST resources than > SOAP methods. > > -Bob Haugen > ebXML, eBTWG, UN/CEFACT Business Process Modeling projects >
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2002 16:32:45 UTC